Kerr BOTH thinks we should be talking about it as a thing that could be good AND that we are only permitted to use a word for it that implies it couldn't be good, 'court-packing'? C'mon, pick a lane. 1/
https://twitter.com/OrinKerr/status/1314314955215138816
The D's need a philosophy of the judicial branch to counter 'originalist' argle-bargle from the right. 'Originalism' is a rhetoric not a philosophy (well, it's a bad philosophy, but so are most rhetorics.) But it's been hugely successful. 2/
D's need to counter that, undesirable as this is, the SC is now thoroughly politicized. Maybe it's all the fault of that darned Earl Warren, but, whatever, in recent decades the right has seen to it that its 6 R-appointed Justices are expected to be reliable partisans. 3/
There are two ways out. 1) Existential fights for partisan dominance on the SC; 2) checks and balances. There is no way, for the foreseeable future, to prevent the SC from engaging in judicial activism except by balancing the court, in a bipartisan way. 4/
12 Justices! 6 Dem, 6 R. Establish a norm that if there is an imbalance - if a retiring D is not replaced by a D, or an R by an R - then it is to be expected that the other side will respond by 'packing' (if we must call it that.) 5/
Drive home the following message: anyone who says they are against judicial activism, who is not in favor of 'courtpacking' to prevent it, is a hypocrite. Period. 6/
Yep. 
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
